If Hughes wins in 1916, what is the Democrats' position on the League of Nations?

CaliGuy

Banned
If Republican Charles Evans Hughes would have defeated Democrat Woodrow Wilson for the U.S. Presidency and the U.S. still entered World War I afterwards (as is likely, since Wilson was the pro-peace candidate and yet the Germans were still willing to antagonize him in our TL), what would have been the Democrats' position on the League of Nations (or its ATL equivalent) as well as on having the U.S. ally with Britain and France after the end of World War I?

Basically, I am curious about this considering that, in our TL, the Republicans (which captured Congress in the 1918 midterm elections) were willing to meet President Wilson halfway and agree to U.S. entry into the League of Nations with reservations as well as to a U.S. alliance with Britain and France after the end of World War I (with them viewing it as a concrete and better alternative to the League of Nations' open-ended commitment). Meanwhile, in this TL, the Democrats are probably going to keep their control of Congress (and very possibly expand the size of their majority there) in the 1918 midterm elections (since Hughes will be the U.S. President in this TL and thus the subject of criticism for his handling of the war). Indeed, a Democratic-controlled Congress in 1919 (after a Hughes victory in 1916) might be less inclined and less willing to agree to any post-war U.S. foreign commitments considering that the Democrats were the pro-peace party in 1916. Thus, in this TL, the Democrats might reluctantly vote for World War I in the U.S. Congress but be adamant that a large-scale U.S. troop commitment to Europe never happen again.

Anyway, I was wondering about what everyone else here thinks about this. Indeed, would a Democratic-controlled Congress in 1919 have given President Hughes even more of a headache over the Versailles Treaty and League of Nations than the Republican-controlled Congress gave President Wilson in 1919 in our TL?

Also, would a Democratic-controlled Congress in 1919 have been willing to ratify U.S. membership of the League of Nations (under any circumstances) and/or a post-WWI U.S. treaty of alliance with Britain and France? Finally, would President Hughes have been more willing to compromise with Congressional Democrats in 1919 in this TL than President Wilson was with Congressional Republicans in our TL?

Any thoughts on all of this?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
For the record, I created this thread specifically to discuss the Democrats' position on this issue in the event of a Hughes victory in 1916; after all, the Democrats are very likely going to be the ones who are controlling the U.S. Congress in 1919 in this TL and thus they would be able to block any of President Hughes's foreign policy proposals which enough of them (specifically one-thirds of the entire U.S. Senate) don't like.
 
Remember that Wilson had already come out for a League *before* the US entered the war, and indeed before the 1916 election:

"We believe these fundamental things: First, that every people has a right to choose the sovereignty under which they shall live. Like other nations, we have ourselves no doubt once and again offended against that principle when for a little while controlled by selfish passion, as our franker historians have been honorable enough to admit; but it has become more and more our rule of life and action. Second, that the small states of the world have a right to enjoy the same respect for their sovereignty and for their territorial integrity that great and powerful nations expect and insist upon. And, third, that the world has a right to be free from every disturbance of its peace that has its origin in aggression and disregard of the rights of peoples and nations.

"So sincerely do we believe in these things that I am sure that I speak the mind and wish of the people of America when I say that the United States is willing to become a partner in any feasible association of nations formed in order to realize these objects and make them secure against violation...." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=65391

Likewise the Democratic platform of 1916 stated

"The Democratic administration has throughout the present war scrupulously and successfully held to the old paths of neutrality and to the peaceful pursuit of the legitimate objects of our National life which statesmen of all parties and creeds have prescribed for themselves in America since the beginning of our history. But the circumstances of the last two years have revealed necessities of international action which no former generation can have foreseen. We hold that it is the duty of the United States to use its power, not only to make itself safe at home, but also to make secure its just interests throughout the world, and, both for this end and in the interest of humanity, to assist the world in securing settled peace and justice. We believe that every people has the right to choose the sovereignty under which it shall live; that the small states of the world have a right to enjoy from other nations the same respect for their sovereignty and for their territorial integrity that great and powerful nations expect and insist upon; and that the world has a right to be free from every disturbance of its peace that has its origin in aggression or disregard of the rights of people and nations; and we believe that the time has come when it is the duty of the United States to join the other nations of the world in any feasible association that will effectively serve those principles, to maintain inviolate the complete security of the highway of the seas for the common and unhindered use of all nations." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29591

So the Democrats had pretty clearly come out in principle for a League. But of course they can say in 1919 that Mr. Hughes' League is not what they had in mind, and list plenty of objections to it. The question is: Is Hughes willing to make enough compromises to get sufficient Democratic support for the League? And my answer is that he does seem to me to be at least more open to compromise than Wilson was...
 
Given that in the OTL Wilson had to use most of his political power to get the League of Nations made, and then worked himself to death trying to get the US to join, I doubt in this TL the League will ever exists. There was momentum towards creating a League to Enforce Peace, or something similar, but without strong enough backers, I don't think anything will come of it. So, given that Hughes will enter the war to protect American interests, as opposed to 'making the world safe for democracy' I'm sure that America will just demand financial reparations, and use its influence to sway decisions on a few minor treaty points. So there really won't be much for the Democratically controlled Congress to oppose, other than a peace treaty with German & co.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Remember that Wilson had already come out for a League *before* the US entered the war, and indeed before the 1916 election:

"We believe these fundamental things: First, that every people has a right to choose the sovereignty under which they shall live. Like other nations, we have ourselves no doubt once and again offended against that principle when for a little while controlled by selfish passion, as our franker historians have been honorable enough to admit; but it has become more and more our rule of life and action. Second, that the small states of the world have a right to enjoy the same respect for their sovereignty and for their territorial integrity that great and powerful nations expect and insist upon. And, third, that the world has a right to be free from every disturbance of its peace that has its origin in aggression and disregard of the rights of peoples and nations.

"So sincerely do we believe in these things that I am sure that I speak the mind and wish of the people of America when I say that the United States is willing to become a partner in any feasible association of nations formed in order to realize these objects and make them secure against violation...." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=65391

Likewise the Democratic platform of 1916 stated

"The Democratic administration has throughout the present war scrupulously and successfully held to the old paths of neutrality and to the peaceful pursuit of the legitimate objects of our National life which statesmen of all parties and creeds have prescribed for themselves in America since the beginning of our history. But the circumstances of the last two years have revealed necessities of international action which no former generation can have foreseen. We hold that it is the duty of the United States to use its power, not only to make itself safe at home, but also to make secure its just interests throughout the world, and, both for this end and in the interest of humanity, to assist the world in securing settled peace and justice. We believe that every people has the right to choose the sovereignty under which it shall live; that the small states of the world have a right to enjoy from other nations the same respect for their sovereignty and for their territorial integrity that great and powerful nations expect and insist upon; and that the world has a right to be free from every disturbance of its peace that has its origin in aggression or disregard of the rights of people and nations; and we believe that the time has come when it is the duty of the United States to join the other nations of the world in any feasible association that will effectively serve those principles, to maintain inviolate the complete security of the highway of the seas for the common and unhindered use of all nations." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29591

Great source, David!

So the Democrats had pretty clearly come out in principle for a League. But of course they can say in 1919 that Mr. Hughes' League is not what they had in mind, and list plenty of objections to it. The question is: Is Hughes willing to make enough compromises to get sufficient Democratic support for the League? And my answer is that he does seem to me to be at least more open to compromise than Wilson was...

OK. However, would Lodge and the Republicans be willing to cooperate with any attempt by Hughes to bring Democrats on board? (For the record, I myself suspect that the answer to this question is Yes due to their unwillingness to undermine a sitting U.S. President of their own party.)

Also, even if the Democrats would be willing to agree to some kind of U.S. membership in the League of Nations in this TL, would they also be willing to agree to a U.S. alliance with Britain and France (as in, in the form of our TL's Guarantee Treaty)?

Indeed, the question of the Anglo-French alliance is arguably even more crucial than that of the League of Nations. After all, this could affect European politics for the next two or more decades.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Given that in the OTL Wilson had to use most of his political power to get the League of Nations made, and then worked himself to death trying to get the US to join, I doubt in this TL the League will ever exists. There was momentum towards creating a League to Enforce Peace, or something similar, but without strong enough backers, I don't think anything will come of it.

Two things:

1. Wilson was unwilling to compromise with the Republicans on the League of Nations in our TL. Plus, he completely ignored some Republicans' willingness to agree to a U.S. treaty of alliance with Britain and France.

2. David T appears to have pointed out that the 1916 Democratic Party platform called for the creation of something akin to the League of Nations.

So, given that Hughes will enter the war to protect American interests, as opposed to 'making the world safe for democracy' I'm sure that America will just demand financial reparations, and use its influence to sway decisions on a few minor treaty points.

Wilson didn't demand financial reparations, did he? If not, why would Hughes have insisted on them?

So there really won't be much for the Democratically controlled Congress to oppose, other than a peace treaty with German & co.

Please keep in mind, though, that even if the League of Nations won't be created in this TL (which I doubt due to David T's link above), there would still be the issue of a post-WWI U.S. alliance with Britain and France. Indeed, France would insist on this (as it did in our TL) and Hughes might try backing France in regards to this; now, the crucial question is this--would the Democrats in the U.S. Senate willing to agree to this? Or would they argue that, with WWI being over and the Central Powers being defeated, the U.S. has no further interests in Europe and thus shouldn't agree to any alliances with any countries?
 
Wilson didn't demand financial reparations, did he? If not, why would Hughes have insisted on them?


Wilson used all of his political sway to attempt to get his 14 points passed and the League of Nations created. Hughes doesn't care about either of those, and so can use America's sway for other purposes.


Please keep in mind, though, that even if the League of Nations won't be created in this TL (which I doubt due to David T's link above), there would still be the issue of a post-WWI U.S. alliance with Britain and France. Indeed, France would insist on this (as it did in our TL) and Hughes might try backing France in regards to this; now, the crucial question is this--would the Democrats in the U.S. Senate willing to agree to this? Or would they argue that, with WWI being over and the Central Powers being defeated, the U.S. has no further interests in Europe and thus shouldn't agree to any alliances with any countries?

Who is going to be backing the movement to create the League of Nations? The 'Democrat Party' can't travel to Versailles for the Peace Treaty, so without a leader to be the forerunner in its creation, its going to have a hard time being made.

As far as an alliance with Britain or France- Hughes wouldn't oppose an alliance with either country, but he wouldn't care too greatly about it either. He had a progressive platform, and if the Democrats in Congress opposed an alliance, Hughes would probably throw said alliance under the bus to advance his progressive platform.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Wilson used all of his political sway to attempt to get his 14 points passed and the League of Nations created. Hughes doesn't care about either of those, and so can use America's sway for other purposes.

Actually, Wilson might have also spent some of his political capital on domestic legislation such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamson_Act

In contrast, Hughes might have more political capital to spare since domestic issues won't occupy as much of his time (due to the war and the U.S. participation in it).

Who is going to be backing the movement to create the League of Nations? The 'Democrat Party' can't travel to Versailles for the Peace Treaty, so without a leader to be the forerunner in its creation, its going to have a hard time being made.

I am presuming that either Hughes (if he personally goes to Versailles) or whoever he sends to Versailles is going to advocate this idea.

As far as an alliance with Britain or France- Hughes wouldn't oppose an alliance with either country, but he wouldn't care too greatly about it either. He had a progressive platform, and if the Democrats in Congress opposed an alliance, Hughes would probably throw said alliance under the bus to advance his progressive platform.

All of this is probably correct. That said, though, you think that the Democrats in Congress would indeed oppose such a U.S. alliance in this TL, correct?
 
Having looked into it a bit I'm not sure Democrats would win a majority in Congress, even with a Republican president. But if they did then I think they would oppose a U.S. alliance- European alliances, with some exceptions, just weren't a thing America did back then, dating all the way back to Washington.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Having looked into it a bit I'm not sure Democrats would win a majority in Congress, even with a Republican president.

The opposition party usually wins Congressional seats in midterm elections, though. Plus, the disruptions which will be caused by World War I won't exactly help the Republicans either (just like they didn't exactly help the Democrats in our TL).

But if they did then I think they would oppose a U.S. alliance- European alliances, with some exceptions, just weren't a thing America did back then, dating all the way back to Washington.

Frankly, I am tempted to agree with you in regards to this. Indeed, I simply don't think that the Democrats would have done such as rapid U-turn from being a pro-peace party to being a (temporarily) internationalist party if it wasn't for Wilson having a second term. Thus, in this TL, I suspect that the Democrats would have remained more isolation-minded (at least outside of the Western Hemisphere) than the Republicans. After all, unlike the pro-Republican Anglophile elites in the North, I don't think that Southern Whites cared much about foreign affairs--indeed, if anything, the idea of being dragged into another European war in the future might scare them since it could disrupt the existing social order in the South.

Anyway, though, I am certainly still interested in hearing David T's thoughts on this issue.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Also, Yes, your point about George Washington's Farewall Address is spot-on. Indeed, it is possible that Democrats in 1919 in this TL would have paid more attention to Washington's warning against foreign alliances than Republicans did in 1919 in our TL.
 
Having looked into it a bit I'm not sure Democrats would win a majority in Congress, even with a Republican president.

They would have had one already.

OTL, they retained a clear majority in the Senate, and were able to organise the House (where they broke even) with the help of a few minor party members. So unless you see the Administration Party actually gaining seats at mid-term - most unlikely - then I don't see how the Dems avoid being in control.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
They would have had one already.

OTL, they retained a clear majority in the Senate, and were able to organise the House (where they broke even) with the help of a few minor party members. So unless you see the Administration Party actually gaining seats at mid-term - most unlikely - then I don't see how the Dems avoid being in control.
Completely agreed with this.

Also, please keep in mind that the President's party generally loses Congressional seats in midterm elections.
 
Top